New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Elemental Urgency: Most Metals Have Inadequate or Nonexistent Alternatives

Materials scientists put together a periodic table of substitute availability for metals, and the picture is grim

©iStock.com

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

*Correction (3/17/15): The periodic table has been updated to include thallium.

Half a century ago only a handful of materials were in widespread use for consumer and industrial products—wood, iron and brick, to name a few of the most prominent ones. Today a single computer chip contains more than 60 elements, ranging from tungsten to ytterbium. Contemporary technology's reliance on such diverse resources, particularly metals, piqued the interest of Thomas Graedel, an environmental scientist at Yale University. With increasing demand for these elements, are replacements available if a shortage occurs?

In most cases, no. In fact, strong substitutes exist for none of the examined 62 metals or metalloids on the periodic table in all their uses, Graedel and his colleagues found after a comprehensive analysis of the elements' properties, life cycles and applications. And inadequate or nonexistent alternatives plagued a dozen metals when it came to their major uses. Replacements in these cases invariably would lead to degraded performance.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


There may be a silver lining to situational scarcities, however, Graedel says. They should inspire engineers to design completely novel, transformative materials.

SOURCE: “ON THE MATERIALS BASIS OF MODERN SOCIETY,” BY T. E. GRAEDEL ET AL., IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, VOL. 112, NO. 20; MAY 19, 2015; Daisy Chung

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe